It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Let's do the time warp again: Reasons for going into Iraq

page: 1

log in


posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:43 AM
One of the threads on this forum was started by "Major Cee" purporting to demonstrate how safe the war in Iraq really is. Safer, you may be surprised to know, than going to the mall or getting in a car. (Presumably much much safer than getting in the car and going to the mall.) I'm not actually sure his statistical analysis was very good - he concentrated only on fatalities rather than all those poor devils (on both sides) who've had limbs blown off... and he completely ignored the fact that if you're an Iraqi who's had your country invaded, this kind of number-juggling is hardly a comfort when occupation soldiers shoot your children or cluster-bomb your farmhouse.

At any rate, I raised the issue of why the US was in Iraq in the first place and the Major (if such he be, and why not?) posted such long, spin-soaked replies it was all going seriously off-topic. The mods were letting him get away with it but I thought it was all a bit unfair and perhaps the time is right for, again, reviewing the reasons for being in Iraq. The major thinks he has something to say, evidently. If he replies here, you'll certainly see he's prepared to type and type (although he does, to date, hit the enter key rather a lot).

I'm fairly new to ATS but I'm up for the argument. So come on, then, can anyone tell me if there are any sensible reasons left standing WHY the US is in Iraq? It might, after all, be a good reminder that some of the reasons given for attacking Iran MIGHT, just might, be full of it.

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 05:56 AM
I have stumbled upon your thread.
I just want to say.
There is not one rational eason for "Bush" to invade a country that did nothing to pravoke an attack.
There is no link between Iraq and Osama bin Laden.
There is no link between Iraq and Al Queda
In fact, There is no link between Sadam Hussein and Osma bin Laden or Al Queda or SEPTEPBER 11 attacks.


why would "Bush n co" say all of those things at 1 point in the last 4 years, if now they are considerd lies or ("BAD INTELIGENCE") wink #ing wink.

So I can give you some reasons why Iraq should not be occupied. But not 1 why it should be.

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 01:45 PM
I too can think of no *good* reason why the US, aided and abetted by the UK launched a pre-emptive air strike followed by a ground assault and occupation of another sovereign country, however bad their leader was.

The crazy propaganda at the time, that attempted to cement a link between Iraq and Al-Quaida did not work for me. Indeed, should the US have been serious about going for the real terrorists, would they not have knocked on the Saudi's door first?

Each subsequent 'justification' including WMD, spreading democracy etc. etc. has also not IMO stood up to any serious and honest scrutiny. In fact the actions of our military have damaged my faith in democracy in my own country. The use of the 'enemy combatant' line to detain people indefinitely without trial, the rendition flights and the torture of detainees at Abu Graib (and other places) do not in my view demonstrate the benefits of being part of a democracy to those we are supposedly trying to 'save'.

Now the Oil.........ah, the oil. Perhaps there may be something in that one.

posted on Apr, 19 2006 @ 06:05 PM
There is also the business of trading oil in Euros. There's an argument that goes something like this: the USD is now a 'fiat' currency that doesn't have to be backed with gold. It has a value because the US Government says so, and keeps printing and exporting dollars.

The value of the dollar is in steady decline, or to put it another way, inflation is constant. This means that imported goods and services paid for in dollars are more beneficial to the US economy than to the poor unfortunate left holding the devalued bucks.

This means that there has to be a good reason for foreign countries to want to buy dollars, and there is: the petrodollar. By ensuring that all oil is traded in dollars, the US ensures that its currency is always needed. Conversely, should trading begin in another, harder currency, like the Euro, the dollar would weaken and could possibly go into free-fall.

Hence the requirement to ensure that this doesn't happen. And guess what our three friends Iraq Iran and Venezuela have in common (apart from sitting on large reserves of black gold)? Saddam began trading in euros about a year before the invasion, and profited financially simply by switching currencies. Venezuela has traded, though not exclusively, in euros; and the Iranians are in the process of setting up an oil bourse trading in euros.

Google search on 'Iranian oil bourse' gives these results.

posted on Apr, 28 2006 @ 06:02 PM
No weapons of mass destruction.
No Al Qaeda (haha well there is now).

Promote democracy? Give me a break, Africa and North Korea need that more than Iraq, but who am I to tell the government how they should act when it comes to democracy.

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:03 PM
We went into Iraq after bringing Iraq in front of the UN Security Council I believe 3 times for violating its law over 20 times.

Iraq was warned many times, either come clean and let the UN have clear and unlimited access to Iraq's military installation sites or face military consequences. If you ladies can remember Saddam did not allow for this and was left with the military consequences.

Hindsight is 20/20, and no one knows how it would of played out differently with Kerry in charge, it is impossible to speculate.

What do you ladies care anyways you have most likely never supported the war. You were indifferent to the war before it began why so much compassion for it all of a sudden?

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:33 PM

Let's look at Foresight:

I guess Bush can justify his war in Iraq with the thought process:

1. Invade Iraq
2. Make Al Qaeda come to us
3. Hopefully piss someone off and make them use a WMD in Iraq.

THUS resulting in him getting what he wanted: Iraq having Al Qaeda and WMD.


But getting to the real point.

There was no "terrorist" threat successfully established in Iraq (EDIT: That threatened the United States, to be a little more clear) as there was in Afghanistan. Patriotic, Unpatriotic - I do not care who you are. If you can reason with yourself and take a look at the "bigger picture" - there are countries that already pose a greater threat to the U.S. as terrorists (*cough* North Korea*).

Spreading democracy? Don't give me that - Manifest Destiny? I don't think so - this isn't the 19th Century. Give Africa and North Korea democracy, they need it more than we do.

[edit on 5/2/2006 by Masisoar]

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 08:46 PM
Take also into account the number of men-women and children that will be psychologically damaged from all of this. I get the shivers thinking about what it might be like to carry the lifeless body of my child or what it must be like to watch your buddy walking one minute and then getting blown up the next. Both sides will have lots more damage then we think. How can anyone ever use that word 'safe' in any shape or form when it comes to war?
You want safe? Throw the 2 leaders of a nation in a pit together and fight till they are both dead and we can have televised voting on who fought better and had the better death. BOTH dead. That will teach any leader to never want to fight again.

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:26 PM
Haha give them Sumo-Wrestling outfits and let them at it! Maybe give them some nun-chucks!

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 09:44 PM
lol, I'm ready, lets do it!

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:25 PM
ThePieMan, do you offer any real alternative to War with Iran?

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 10:56 PM
How about leaving them alone?

posted on May, 2 2006 @ 11:54 PM

new topics

top topics


log in